[reinventingthewheel]

That's very interesting. Staying along the rail corridor, then veering north along the Queensway and finally up Islington or Kipling could be a really compelling plan. Would unlock a lot of development potential in south Etobicoke.

Though I appreciate the benefits, I suspect the scope of a first phase would be limited to Park Lawn. Reaching HBS has great benefits and could be procured as one or two relatively straightforward contracts.

I think anything beyond will take a lot more consultation, and be a lot more disruptive and expensive to deliver, elevated or underground.

I also suspect we’d see a similarly sized northern extension (~6km above grade to Sheppard) before anything further west than Park Lawn. That’s just my opinionated take though, we’ll see in 10+ years.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I still prefer the Dundas West Mt Dennis alignment. That's just much more guaranteed ridership.

 

[Towered]

I still prefer the Dundas West Mt Dennis alignment. That's just much more guaranteed ridership.

Agreed. South Etobicoke can be served by a mix of GO expansion (Park Lawn), Waterfront West LRT (if it ever happens!) and Queensway LRT (which most certainly should happen).

 

[Bojaxs]

I still prefer the Dundas West Mt Dennis alignment. That's just much more guaranteed ridership.

You can split a subway line/ metro in two directions. You see it often in London with many of it's Underground lines (Northern line) and it's Elizabeth line. Vancouver's Skytrain also does this.

From Exhibition you can have one line veer off to Mt. Dennis and another line continue westward to Mimico.

Extending the OL to Mt. Dennis can help to fill the gaps between the GO stations on the Kitchener line. No more smart track stations. Just get off at Mt. Dennis GO station and from there transfer onto the OL to go to St. Clair, etc.

I posted this image a while ago in the Transit Fantasy thread.

EDIT: The portion heading up to Mt Dennis is underground. I messed up the colour. Should be dark blue.

 

[micheal_can]

You can split a subway line/ metro in two directions. You see it often in London with many of it's Underground lines (Northern line) and it's Elizabeth line. Vancouver's Skytrain also does this.

From Exhibition you can have one line veer off to Mt. Dennis and another line continue westward to Mimico.

Extending the OL to Mt. Dennis can help to fill the gaps between the GO stations on the Kitchener line. No more smart track stations. Just get off at Mt. Dennis GO station and from there transfer onto the OL to go to St. Clair, etc.

I posted this image a while ago in the Transit Fantasy thread.
View attachment 679885

For the northwest leg,what about pushing it back before Exhibition and have it follow the railway line?

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

You can split a subway line/ metro in two directions. You see it often in London with many of it's Underground lines (Northern line) and it's Elizabeth line. Vancouver's Skytrain also does this.

From Exhibition you can have one line veer off to Mt. Dennis and another line continue westward to Mimico.

Extending the OL to Mt. Dennis can help to fill the gaps between the GO stations on the Kitchener line. No more smart track stations. Just get off at Mt. Dennis GO station and from there transfer onto the OL to go to St. Clair, etc.

I posted this image a while ago in the Transit Fantasy thread.
View attachment 679885

I've seen a "trackless train" in High Park, but I don't think that should count as a GO corridor

 

[Bojaxs]

I've seen a "trackless train" in High Park, but I don't think that should count as a GO corridor

I messed up the colour. They portion heading up to Mt. Dennis would be underground.

 

[Rainforest]

I messed up the colour. They portion heading up to Mt. Dennis would be underground.

It would be quite hard to tunnel under High Park, because of the high-pressure aquifer located there.

Probably the last place within Toronto's borders where you want to build any kind of tunnel.

 

[Rainforest]

We should not forget that Ontario Line's stations are designed to be smaller than Yonge Line's or Bloor-Danforth Line's stations. About 100 m long, vs 150 m.

They are going to compensate for the smaller station size by running very frequent automated trains, but - that means the ultimate capacity limit for Ontario Line is lower. The interval between trains cannot be reduced indefinitely, because of the dwell time at the busiest stations. People need to be able to exit the train, and then board the train.

And despite that limitation, Metrolinx wants Ontario Line to provide relief for the Union station. A meaningful percentage of riders arriving on GO trains is expected to transfer to OL at the East Harbour and Exhibition stations, and thus avoid Union. For that to happen, Ontario Line needs to have some spare capacity at the busiest points (right before entering downtown) during the rush hours.

Therefore, I doubt it is a good idea to split OL into multiple branches. Multiple branches mean an even greater overall catchment area, and thus a higher risk of overcrowding.

If it is not branched, then what is the best route in the west: south of High Park along the lakeshore, or veer north and cross the Bloor-Danforth Line? An argument can be made for either route, although my preference is south of High Park in the existing rail corridor.

 

[nfitz]

It would be quite hard to tunnel under High Park, because of the high-pressure aquifer located there.

Probably the last place within Toronto's borders where you want to build any kind of tunnel.

In my hydrogeological engineering experience, there's worse places to tunnel. There's nothing unusual about having artesian conditions right next, or under, a creek. Exactly the same occurs on the Line 2 extension, along the bank of the creek, just north of Lawrence East station; and they are tunnelling about 40-metres under that! Probably pushing 50 metres of head in some places along that tunnel, and over 40 metres in Lawrence East station. I'd have to check to confirm, but I don't even think the bedrock is that deep under that part of High Park! It's just a design factor.

That said though ... a line through High Park? Good grief, just elevate it along Parkside or something - though I don't see this one happening - there's not enough density south of Bloor. Even elevated through High Park shouldn't be a big deal - was elevating the Expo Line through Central Park a problem?

 

[micheal_can]

In my hydrogeological engineering experience, there's worse places to tunnel. There's nothing unusual about having artesian conditions right next, or under, a creek. Exactly the same occurs on the Line 2 extension, along the bank of the creek, just north of Lawrence East station; and they are tunnelling about 40-metres under that! Probably pushing 50 metres of head in some places along that tunnel, and over 40 metres in Lawrence East station. I'd have to check to confirm, but I don't even think the bedrock is that deep under that part of High Park! It's just a design factor.

That said though ... a line through High Park? Good grief, just elevate it along Parkside or something - though I don't see this one happening - there's not enough density south of Bloor. Even elevated through High Park shouldn't be a big deal - was elevating the Expo Line through Central Park a problem?

Hence why I suggested pulling it back to the existing ROW for the rail lines. Even tunneling under it, it may make it easier, and may allow better station placement.

 

[junctionist]

That said though ... a line through High Park? Good grief, just elevate it along Parkside or something - though I don't see this one happening - there's not enough density south of Bloor. Even elevated through High Park shouldn't be a big deal - was elevating the Expo Line through Central Park a problem?

Are you kidding? No one is going to want an elevated line through High Park's pristine green spaces.

Yet, High Park is a major destination in the city as one of its signature parks. I'd certainly want to give downtown and suburban residents a quick ride to the park by having a station on the Ontario Line extension.

 

[nfitz]

Are you kidding? No one is going to want an elevated line through High Park's pristine green spaces.

Of course not - it's only slightly less silly than tunnelling under. But see also Central Park.

Yet, High Park is a major destination in the city as one of its signature parks. I'd certainly want to give downtown and suburban residents a quick ride to the park by having a station on the Ontario Line extension.

If only there was a station called High Park, next to the park. Though perhaps we can just build a streetcar loop on a nearby line that goes through the densely-populated streetcar suburbs.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Of course not - it's only slightly less silly than tunnelling under. But see also Central Park.


If only there was a station called High Park, next to the park. Though perhaps we can just build a streetcar loop on a nearby line that goes through the densely-populated streetcar suburbs.

High Park was donated to the city in 1876 at the bequest of John George Howard. The High Park streetcar loop at Parkside Drive (formerly Keele Street) opened in 1893. (On July 4, 1947, another High Park Loop opened on the south side of Bloor Street at High Park Avenue. That Bloor Street & High Park loop was abandoned when the Bloor-Danforth Subway was extended to Islington Station in1968.)

 

[dowlingm]

It would be helpful for me, and possibly others, if those proposing alignments could specify if the goal is to serve density that exists, or to create more.